TerraDrive Universe talk:Rules
Mckaysalisbury's proposals So, I'd like to generally follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, except where it obviously doesn't make sense (like Biographies of Living Persons and Attribution). When it comes to content policies, I'm not sure how I feel. I think I'd like to adopt a " " policy. So, anything that gets posted becomes fact unless it either contradicts something that someone else has posted or is overridden by supermajority. It makes vandalism harder to deal with, but it's probably a decent way of doing thigns. We could have policies of preventing negative or absolute content, or other things that prevent effective gaming. Like it should obviously be incorrect to say something like "The Corpers will win the PAX war.", because then that destroys the game. Thoughts? McKay 18:16, 3 July 2007 (EDT) :I like the idea of following relevant Wikipedia policies. Using a precedent system (what you're calling "first post as fact") has some problems, specifically if someone takes something in an odd direction, we have to get a consensus together to override, and while we're building the consensus, the offending article is continuing to be developed. I think allowing people to edit and take things in a new direction (or even reverse something someone else did) is okay, as long as we follow the policies for edit wars (three reverts and you're done). TonyHellmann 18:48, 3 July 2007 (EDT) :I think we should designate which articles are Complete fact and can not be changed. BUT if someone would want to change the article then they would request to. People would vote whether or not they can change it based on their writing skill. I don't know if there is such a system already in wiki's but maybe we have to create it. And maybe voting can be for more than just writing articles. Sentos 14:29, 4 July 2007 (EDT) ::I'm not comfortable with the idea of telling people they can't edit something anymore, because other people have decided its good enough. The community will self-regulate. If a lot of people like something the way it is, and someone changes it, someone else will change it back. TonyHellmann 14:20, 5 July 2007 (EDT) :::hmmm very well but to be honest i don't know the extent of how "Free" Terra Drive is. --Sentos 18:43, 5 July 2007 (EDT) :::The problem I see with allowing anyone to make broad sweeping changes, is that one committed person can totally "destroy" the universe. Without rules to say that some things can't change. He has the ability to say that things should be his way, and he can individually enforce that. It shows that dedication is more important than communitiy. McKay 18:52, 5 July 2007 (EDT) I support the idea of everything being mutable. But I think the ability to establish some things, as "Cannon” is needed. By establishing a few base facts (IE the system is named PAX) it gives people a place to start from. These articles should still be open to change. Something like submit a Draft to the mod's and Open it up to a 48 vote on the discussion page? I don’t know the full extent of Wiki's tool set is it possible to lock portions of a page? Hexcore 19:36, 5 July 2007 (EDT) :That is what i was thinking but better spelled out. --Sentos 20:03, 5 July 2007 (EDT) :Locking portions of a page is possible (by using templates liberally, syntax can be pretty hairy, and it's harder to edit the non-protected portions, careless editors can inadvertently make it even harder.) McKay 11:15, 9 July 2007 (EDT) Canon Proposal Okay, I'm starting to see that people are concerned about "canon." This is a valid concern. My personal opinion is that if the masses believe something is canon, they will revert/edit anything that deviates from said canon. At first I thought maybe if mercs (us) had a system to propose an article as canonnical, then vote, then protect the page, that would be good, but the problem with that is if we do that, you can't add anything to the protected page. Then I started thinking about how Wikipedia handles issues like that. They do it with templates. If someone created a template that said "A majority of mercs have voted this article as part of the TDU Canon. If you would like to make substantive changes to the existing text, please discuss it on the talk page." Then you could drop at the bottom of an article and call it good. The process would be that someone would propose a page as canon on the talk page, we'd get a certain number of yes votes, then it would get the tag. If we see a tag on an article that doesn't have a valid proposal and vote on its talk page, we remove the tag. This way if someone has something to add, a wikilink, a fleshing out of a formerly minor character or world, they'll still have access to do so. Thoughts? TonyHellmann 18:30, 6 July 2007 (EDT) Responses That's fine, but the question is, "what precisely is canon". The way most fiction canons go is what actually has been created by the company. So, really, the things I see as canon are the things that Technomancer actually publishes in a book or something. Until that happens, really, nothing is actually canon. McKay 11:15, 9 July 2007 (EDT) :Right, but we can do it however we want. If the community wants to decide canon by vote, cool. If they want to wait for Technomancer Press to publish, cool. If they want Technomancer Press to arbitrarily decide, we can do that too. Whatever works best for the community. TonyHellmann 17:30, 10 July 2007 (EDT) I would say that just voting would prove to be an effective policy, that way the handling of this aspect will still be community driven. I feel that if enough people put that high of a praise on an article, that most likely it would deserve the title of canon. I also support the template idea, bravo! --VitusVenture 21:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)